Taxi Driver Online

New taxi cab office, restaurant and retail units in Westgate recommended despite ‘conflict’ concerns

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... ns-3282809

Plans for a new taxi cab office in Westgate, as well as restaurant and retail units, have been recommended for approval despite concerns of a “conflict”.

The application from Gujjar Investments Limited - relating to the former Maplin store opposite Beales - will be voted on by Peterborough City Council’s planning committee next Tuesday.

Councillors on the committee have been advised to approve the plans which would see the office utilised by people booking a private hire vehicle through the Autocab app.

This is despite the authority receiving 41 objections to the plans, while its own licensing team has also highlighted its opposition.

One of the major concerns, according to a recently released council report, is the “potential conflict between hackney carriage and private hire drivers in terms of competition”.

Private hire vehicles have to by law be pre-booked, while hackney carriage drivers can stop and pick up passengers.

There have been complaints in Peterborough that private hire vehicles have been flouting the law, and the council report notes: “Officers are aware that immediately in front of the application site is a hackney carriage taxi rank, and letters of representation have raised serious concerns with regards to the potential for private hire vehicles to park in this area, potentially taking business illegally.

“These concerns are noted, however, it is understood from the council’s parking enforcement team that private hire vehicles are not permitted to park in these spaces and the enforcement of such would be down to the parking enforcement team and the police, which is a matter separate to the planning process.”

The report adds that “competition between businesses is not a material planning consideration” and cannot impact the decision made by the planning committee.

It also notes that taxis are allowed to pick up passengers on double yellow lines or loading bays, which are currently in place in Westgate.

However, planning officers have recommended that planning permission be granted for an initial two year period to “enable sufficient time to demonstrate that the business can operate without resulting in an adverse highway safety hazard”.

The report adds: “At the end of two year temporary period, a fresh planning application would need to be submitted. If the local planning authority and council’s parking enforcement team were in receipt of reasonable and upheld complaints, this may mean a permanent permission would be resisted.”

The council’s licensing team has objected to the application, stating: “The presence of a taxi cab office in this location would serve no identifiable benefit when considering that there is a well-established taxi rank located immediately opposite the premises and the junction with Park Road.

“As relatively recent history has demonstrated, the private hire booking office (A2B Euro Cars) located at 62 Westgate had a detrimental impact on the ability of hackney carriages to effectively ply for hire from the taxi rank located in the locality of the bus station due to loss of trade.

“If the same were to happen to the taxi rank located opposite the proposed site, the effect would likely be that the hackney carriage trade would migrate to the already congested ranks on Broadway with the potential for this to result in issues relating to congestion and traffic flow.

“Furthermore, and as a consequence, should the proposal be granted in its current form, this would doubtless serve to heighten tensions between the private hire and hackney carriage trade in the area.

“At present there is no information provided regarding parking provision for private hire vehicles. It is reasonable to assume that should a taxi cab office be situated at this location then this will generate an increase in private hire traffic in the locality with private hire vehicles parking, waiting, idling etc. between fares, affecting overall traffic flow and negatively impacting the air quality in an area of heavy pedestrian footfall.”

The other parts of the application include dividing the ground floor into six retail units and providing a restaurant on the second floor.

Neither require planning permission.

And yet there has been a PH office adjacent to the station rank for 30 years !


that is hardly the busiest rank in Peterborough and I would think the convenience of somewhere to nip to the loo and get a drink will be taken advantage of as the Hack drivers as they will almost certainly know or be related to the PH office owners

the PH's will probably park on the double yellows opposite the bus station

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Seems you've misrepresented the Peterborough trade's family tree


New Peterborough taxi office will ‘break drivers struggling from Covid’ - LETTER

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... er-3288702

You may be aware, as printed in your previous edition, that council planning officers have recommended approval for planning proposals for a taxi office on the former Maplins site on Westgate.

A decision is to be made by the Planning and Environmental Committee via a vote on 29th June at 13.30hrs at the council offices.

I would just like to bring to your attention the financial hardship this will bring to many drivers.

The drivers have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic waiting for up to 1hr, and even longer in many cases, between fares just to keep the city, and their livelihoods, going.

They’ve risked their own lives, as well as that of their own families, in order to provide the vital services to get key workers to and from their places of employment.

The drivers have barely recovered from the effects of the lockdowns and this new taxi office will break them.

We have seen black cab numbers dwindle from over 200 to barely over 100 due to planning consent given to A2B taxis opposite the bus station rank, and the problems that has caused as well as the pandemic.

The drivers have had to abandon the bus station taxi rank due to the detrimental impact of the taxi office across the road, i.e. lack of work.

We will see a repeat of this should planning consent be given for a taxi office to operate right outside the Westgate taxi rank.

This, in turn, would negatively impact the services provided to wheelchair users coming out of Queensgate as drivers would have moved to another, more viable, rank.

The black cabs provide a vital service to the disabled people who rely on this service.

Disabled users will have to travel further in all weathers to another rank to get a cab.

Additionally, this application would also open the floodgates for more mini cab offices to apply for planning in the city centre.

This will cause anti-social behaviour in the nighttime, added to noise, air and traffic pollution.

As a city that is working towards being a ‘green’ city, granting such a license would be a step in the wrong direction. This is particularly significant given that many Hackney drivers have invested in greener vehicles - very expensive electric cabs. Where is the incentive for others to follow suit when they face further loss of income?

The taxi licensing team themselves have voiced their concerns and opposed this application, and the bigger picture would eventually, and inevitably, see the black cabs being wiped out altogether.

Tahir Chaudhary

Co chair PETERBOROUGH HACKNEY DRIVER’S FEDERATION

Not according to my contacts

the reason Hack numbers have dwindled has been the non stop trade war that resulted from the policies of some of the Pirate hire offices. During the 1990's and 2000's there was a massive recruitment drive to bring drivers in from overseas many drivers then set themselves up as PH firms after getting fed up with low earnings. Prices have dropped in actual terms and people stopped using the Hacks as PH were half the price or less. The drivers working the station do OK but the bus station rank was always quiet and the other ranks were busy at certain times of night but not 24 hours

Some of the Hacks are attached to PH offices but price always wins we have lost no end of trade to and from Peterborough because I am not prepared to drop our price to and from Peterborough to the 60 to 70p a mile (for the round trip) the PH will work for

Many of the drivers on the Peterborough circuit want to work Stamford because despite no price increase for 9 years it's still a lot better prices than in Peterborough

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Think a planning committee would be skating on very thin ice if they refused a planning application for a PH office based on objections from the taxi trade that its near a taxi rank.

Part of me thinks having an office near a rank is better for the taxis, as it could draw punters that way.

_________________
IDFIMH

100 Peterborough taxi drivers who protested at council offices celebrate after plans for private hire cab business refused

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... ed-3290687

Around 100 taxi drivers in Peterborough celebrated tonight (Tuesday, June 29) after protesting outside the city council’s offices for much of the day over plans for a new private hire cab business.


Image: Peterborough Telegraph

Angry hackney carriage drivers descended on the council’s offices at Fletton Quays to protest against an application from Gujjar Investments Limited, to set up a minicab office in Westgate, at the site of the former Maplin store, opposite Beales, which had been recommended for approval by planning officers.

But after a dramatic day, which saw dozens of hackney carriages outside the authority’s Sand Martin House offices given parking tickets, councillors on the planning committee voted to turn down the plans.

The proposed new development would be a booking office and waiting area for people booking a private hire vehicle through the Autocab app.

The application had been recommended for approval despite 41 objections being received and the council’s own licensing team highlighting its opposition.

But councilors at the meeting refused the application by majority vote.

The Peterborough Telegraph also understands that a council officer met hackney carriage drivers outside and gave them an assurance that the parking tickets handed out during the protest would be rescinded.

Among the concerns that had been highlighted was the potential for conflict between hackney carriage and private hire drivers.

Private hire vehicles have to, by law, be pre-booked, while hackney carriage drivers can stop and pick up passengers.

Right outside the proposed office site, there is a hackney carriage taxi rank and concerns were raised about private-hire drivers being allowed to use the site to pick up passengers illegally.

Among the other objections raised by the Peterborough Hackney Driver’s Federation, in an open letter published by the Peterborough Telegraph, are the loss of business they would suffer, on top of having to already abandon the rank near the bus station due to competition from A2B’s nearby office, the negative impact to wheelchair users coming out of Queensgate and the impact to Peterborough’s work towards becoming a ‘green city.’

Hackney drivers have been encouraged to invest in greener, very expensive, electric cabs and say that the loss of their business would not encourage others to do the same and the city centre risks being flooded with more minicab offices and in turn, more pollution and anti-social behaviour.

Up to 100 hackney carriage drivers turned up at around 1:30pm, when the meeting was due to start, to make their thoughts known and were all given parking tickets, only for the council to later reverse their decision and cancel the tickets.

Speaking about the effect the new plans would have on disabled passengers, one of the protestors said: “This particular rank is right outside the Queensgate shopping centre, you have disabled people in wheelchairs coming out of there to a well-serviced rank, which has been there for over 30 years, and they jump in a black cab and they go home.

“What’s going to happen when black cabs are banned on that rank is they’ll be coming out, there will be no cars on that rank, they will have to go round in all weathers to another rank to get a cab. Even though there is a minicab office right beside Queensgate, there is no guarantee that there will be a vehicle available for them to jump in and go. So they will be waiting 10-15 minutes and it’s not fair for them.”

Another added: “We have no idea why Peterborough City Council is telling us to invest in green cars, which is £60,000 a vehicle, and then letting all the minicab firms from the surrounding area come and operate in Peterborough; this is a double standard.

“This is our livelihood, we’ve just been hit by a pandemic for the last 18 months and now the ranks are being taken away from us.”










Images: Peterborough Telegraph

Indeed, and there's nothing in the article about the rationale for refusual, but presumably we may hear a bit more in due course.

But part of the HC trade's case seems to be based on a false premise, for example this claim that HCs would be banned from the rank:





Odd for an article like this to mention what booking and despatch software the applicant is using. So I'm guessing this is a line fed to the journalist by the HCDs, and the reasoning should be obvious to readers on here, if not to readers of the Peterborough Telegraph

well 1 of their new rivals recently went into Peterborough and Ufail are a bit like Starbucks if a rival opens somewhere they have to open in the same place.

This is more about keeping Ufail out than just objecting to an office

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I suspect the Autocab issue is a big one for the local cab trade as that office will also be covering Uber work before the end of the year.

_________________
IDFIMH

And the problem with the Autocab angle is that it probably wouldn't have made a lot of difference to the HC trade whether or not permission for the office was granted

Certainly wouldn't have helped the HC rank there, but as far as Autocab and Uber are concerned the whereabouts of the office shouldn't really matter

The Hackney trade in Peterborough has been on a downward spiral for years the PH trade has seen to that despite many of them being from the same families all of the corporate work goes to the PH trade and for years PH have floated around the city centre at night trying to grab non pre booked fares as testament on here to the number of stories in days gone past of PFH court cases. The main rank is on Broadway which is only round the corner from the proposed office

It will only be a short lived victory because there are plenty of empty shops and restaurants in nearby streets they will get their office I'm sure and The hack trade will probably drop to around 40 to 60 vehicles mostly working the train station but not because of the office but because PH are mega cheap in Peterborough because there are too many companies with too many cars all trying and failing to dominate

The apps have Peterborough in their sights it is a big city with a lot of well educated people amongst the population perfect fodder for the app companies

Oh and if you look up Gujjar investments they are also known as Cartel investments

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Some of the reasoning here. Not sure to what extent these are legitimate planning considerations, and the first quoted councillor isn't on the planning committee anyway, by the looks of things.


Decision to turn down a planned mini-cab office in Peterborough described as ‘victory for common sense’

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... se-3294548

The decision to turn down a planned mini-cab office in Peterborough has been described as a ‘victory for common sense’.

More than 100 Hackney cab owners celebrated as Peterborough City Council rejected an application for the new mini-cab office on a site in the city centre at a meeting on Tuesday (June 29).


Speaking on behalf of the owner drivers, who had staged an angry demonstration outside the council offices at Sand Martin House while the meeting was taking place, was Cllr Mohammed Jamil who had attended the meeting as ward councillor. 
Cllr Jamil said: “I think that common sense has prevailed for these Hackney cab drivers.

“There is no need to have so many taxi offices in a city centre, especially such a small city centre like we have in Peterborough.

“The effect of this mini-cab office right opposite an existing Hackney carriage rank and just meters from another rank, would have decimated the trade for these drivers.

“If you use modern technology – apps and smart phones – then there is simply no need for you to be in the city centre.

“You can literally be located anywhere, get the message on the app system that a cab is required, then come in, pick up where the cab is needed, and head-off out again – it really is as simple as that.

“So, I’m very glad that the Planning Committee saw sense, and I think we got the right result today.”

During the debate on the matter, Cllr Christian Hogg asked: “We are constantly pushing for more updated technology to improve air quality in our city, so why is it that we should be asked to approve a new mini-cab office in the city centre when apps and smart phones would provide exactly the same service if that office was located outside of the city centre?

“Surely by having this in Westgate, we would only be encouraging more pollution?”

Cllr Dennis Jones had concerned about the location, saying: “As I understand it this proposed office is right opposite an existing Hackney-carriage rank, and the loading-bay outside this new office would only have spaces for four taxis to pull up.

“What happens if a lorry is already there loading or unloading? Will the taxis simply circle the bay until it is free? No, what will happen is that they will pull up further down the road on the double yellow lines and let their passenger get in there.

“But what if that passenger is disabled? The potential for danger is enormous and I don’t think we need this proposed office in the location of the city centre when technology now would allow it to be just as efficient if it were out of the centre.”

The angry Hackney carriage drivers were protesting against an application from Gujjar Investments Limited, to set up a minicab office in Westgate, at the site of the former Maplin store, opposite Beales, which had been recommended for approval by planning officers.

While they were protesting, a parking officer from Peterborough City Council went round and gave a £70 parking ticket to more than 80 of the taxis that were parked (on double yellow lines) outside the new council offices, the PT understands the drivers were subsequently told the tickets would be rescinded.

Cllr Jamil added: “My colleague and I, Cllr Shaz Nawaz, are already working on that – its silly that the council felt the need for this gesture which to my mind just causes unnecessary paperwork on behalf of officers and unnecessary stress on behalf of the drivers.

“These are owner-drivers that the city council know have just gone through extremely tough times during COVID-19.

“It costs these drivers over £67,000 a year just to keep their Hackney carriages on the road, and some of them are genuinely struggling.

“We heard from the Peterborough Hackney Driver’s Federation in the meeting that it is all well and good having the city council declare they want cleaner vehicles, and electric cabs, but they cost a lot of money. How are these drivers supposed to invest in that kind of green technology, when their livelihood is threatened in this way?

“For a year and a half now, they’ve had such a big loss to their earnings, and to put this on top of them today, well, I thought the actions of our parking enforcement officers was pointless, mindless and frankly shameless.

“These are people who have kept Peterborough going for the past year or more, and this is stress they don’t need – so, yes, we will see what we can do to get these parking tickets rescinded.”

There were huge cheers from the Hackney cab drivers when they were told the result of the Planning Committee decision.

Spot the spelling error

Or sneaky pun?


£67k per year?

They must be buying a new EV every year and scrapping it before buying the next one

But to a degree councillors are right about apps etc. But they're also very wrong, because if this had been twenty years ago, would the lack of an app have made any difference to the arguments they're making, ie that the office could be anywhere because of the apps? Not really - that argument could have been made pre-app.

In fact one councillor undermines his own case in mentioning possible congestion and parking issues when picking up punters - obviously there would be no such pick ups if the office was located on an industrial estate, say.

So presumably the firm wants an office in such a city centre location because of the walk-up work, particularly if they're significantly cheaper than the ranked HCs nearby.

But apart from that, councillors are correct that the precise location of the office doesn't really matter, at least to the extent that it's never really mattered for pre-booked work.

So a stay of execution as regards direct competition with the rank. But in the longer term, and more widely, the creeping affect of apps is just another nail in the HC coffin, particularly if Uber are waiting in the wings of this firm's Autocab booking system

Really? I mean really?

_________________
IDFIMH

Well that was all a complete waste of time - looks like a fresh application was made, and the office has been approved.

Plenty of quotes here, but it's mostly about the objections, and the stuff said in support is, er, just soundites rather than substance.

And not entirely clear either what the basis of the fresh application was, but marshalls and CCTV are mentioned.

So quite a lengthy article, but not the most rounded, and the headline is just nonsense


New Westgate taxi rank approved - despite 'crime' potential

https://www.peterboroughmatters.co.uk/l ... gh-1941372

Six new retail units on Westgate, including a new taxi booking office, have been approved despite fears of anti-social behaviour.

Members of the city council Planning and Environmental Protection Committee gave the go-ahead for the application despite its previous refusal on grounds “…it would bring additional people into the area late at night, resulting in the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the vicinity of Westgate and thereby would not comprise a positive contribution to the character of the area.”

In June 2021 more than 100 drivers gathered en-masse to protest outside Fletton Quays.

And speaking at Tuesday's meeting ward councillor Cllr Mohammed Jamil said: “I realise that the applicant has made a fresh application with amendments to the one previously refused however, while officers are recommending approval, I feel I cannot support the inclusion of the taxi rank booking office which has the potential to cause ASB and crime in that area late at night.

“I have nothing personal against the applicant nor the other commercial units in the application including the restaurant.

“But this is an area already served by many other taxi ranks with the next nearest taxi office just 100 yards away.

“In addition, the police have stated ‘…being directly adjacent to a Hackney Carriage taxi rank, these ranks are for hackney carriages to wait and lawfully ply for hire. If the private hire drivers park nearby and wait for or collect customers here it is likely to provoke disputes or ASB incidents’.”

“We’ve received 70 responses from members of the public regarding this application, of which 64 are objecting – which I believe says volumes and should be taken into consideration when making a decision.

“In this new application, the applicant puts forward the idea of marshalls and CCTV to ‘police’ the area and keep late-night, alcohol-fuelled ASB to a minimum.

“I think the fact that the applicant even mentions the idea of marshalls in the area says that he is expecting some kind of trouble to arise.

“This then leads us to the question of what roles will these marshalls have? Will they be inside, outside, and what powers will they be given?

“In just the last year there were 132 acts of crime and 62 instances ASB in that vicinity, and I believe that putting another taxi office there which isn’t even needed, will just add to the possibility of problems arising.

“Our own taxi-licencing department has voiced its opposition to this application – and remember, these are the people who give out the badges and know how the taxi business works.

“So, for me, they’re the experts; and if they’re saying this is not a good idea through highlighting the fact there are only four disabled bays there, and none for anybody to stop and actually pick up a taxi passenger – then I think those are grounds the committee must listen to.”

Chair, Cllr Peter Hiller said: “You mentioned that the applicant has offered the services of marshalls to be positioned either inside or outside the premises, should it be approved.

“Give the reason for the refusal of the last application was ASB, would it not occur to the man in the street that marshalls might be a counter to that potential problem rather than a threat?”

Cllr Jamil replied: “My thinking is that when you say you have to have marshalls is almost like you’re saying, ‘well there’s going to be trouble and these guys would try and sort it out beforehand’ – it’s like having ‘bouncers’ in a nightclub where there’s still trouble both inside and outside, even though they’re there and will not deter anybody who is going to commit an act of crime or ASB from doing it.”

Chair Hiller responded: “I thank you for drawing the analogy with ‘bouncers’ in a nightclub – from my limited knowledge of nightclubs, they’re there to address problems rather than to prevent problems.”

Objecting on behalf of the taxi trade was Amran Masood who said: “We strongly feel that through the implementation of these extra measures outlined in the new application will make no difference to the on-going ASB issues in the city centre.

“CCTV already exists in the Westgate area, yet we still receive ASB incidents and taxi marshalls, and door-staff already exist in nightclubs, pubs, and at the ranks and they do little to stop the ASB problems.

“All the taxi bookings in Peterborough are already served through digital bookings on a taxi app on a mobile phone which totally defeats the object of having yet another taxi booking office in that area, so the last thing we want is more intoxicated people hanging around a booking office late at night simply increasing the potential for ASB and crime.

“We are fully in agreement with the police report that states this area attracts ASB and crime already and we strongly feel that the crucial element that has been overlooked is the parking situation which clearly shows our daily struggles with private vehicles, delivery vans and even other private hire cars using the ranks.

“This is a serious matter as we face daily threats and verbal abuse from other drivers illegally parked and leaving their vehicles unattended on the ranks.

“We state therefore that by granting this application we believe it will lead to more confrontations, more ASB, more crime in the area including safety concerns for our drivers and of course our passengers.”

However, Cllr Ishfaq Hussein said: “If we are to be a progressive city – and we say that we want to attract more and more people to come to Peterborough – then I think it is important that we make it as easy as possible to come here and when they are here to get around the city; so I think we should grant this application.”

Members voted by majority of 6 for to 4 against, to approve the application.